I remember watching last year's (2010) Coaches v. Cancer at MSG telecast and between games Jay Bilas editorialized on how there were too many D-I teams. I was rather shocked at the seething vitriol in his voice and the overall 'we'll take our ball and go home' tone. The thing is, Bilas was probably just voicing what many in the top tier believe: why share our loot with those who barely put in the resources.

The one thing I can say is that the NCAA tourney works precisely because of the egalitarian nature and 'Cinderella' moments. The overwhelming majority of these teams are just happy to compete, gain some exposure, and earn some crumbs in the process. And people like that. The have-nots have lots of alumni as well who in turn tune in and buy tickets and merchandise, etc. Be careful of what you wish for vis a vis a tourney of nothing but power conference teams. No one gets excited about a 7th place SEC team upsetting Duke or an 11th place Big East team going to the wire with Kansas regardless of seeding.

I disagree. The "cinderella" moments are a minor blip. It's the UPSETS that are the moments people get excited about. I remember a #10 seed Maryland team beating a #2 seeded UMass team when I was in school. And we've seen many other cases when a #12 seed Big Ten school upset a #5 ACC school. It's the numerical catalog in place in the tourney that drives the type of interest you mention. You are correct, when a #12 Murray St. beats a #5 Louisville, it's a big deal as it's a "small school" in the casual persons mind. But it's still the seeds that are key. Even better is that with no autobids, there won't be such a huge drop in quality between seeds. A #15 Missouri might be a 7 point underdog against a #2 Ohio St. Nothing wrong with making the early rounds better games. Might have years where you see an entire region have "upsets" in the 1st round as the point spreads would be closer than they are now. And the big boys get there money as they'll likely send more schools (are you going to pass on 17-11 ACC school like Pitt in favor of a 22-6 Duquesne?)

I think you are COMPLETELY off base, and if the powers that be think like you, they will slay the Golden Goose.March Madness EXISTS because of the mix of small guys and big guys.I'd rather see Norfolk or Lehigh in the tourney that a mediocre Big 5 team. And face it, if you can't break .500 in your conference, you are a mediocre team.

The early games are good all ready.

Yeah, gonna have to agree with that statement. I didn't get excited for NC State this year. It was go Lehigh and Norfolk after the first round. Last year it was VCU and Butler (even though I had UConn winning it all, damn the bracket at that point). We know they aren't going to win it all and rarely get out of the second round. But that's what makes a run like George Mason's so wonderful, it's rare. Nova winning as an 8 seed...so what?

I remember watching last year's (2010) Coaches v. Cancer at MSG telecast and between games Jay Bilas editorialized on how there were too many D-I teams. I was rather shocked at the seething vitriol in his voice and the overall 'we'll take our ball and go home' tone. The thing is, Bilas was probably just voicing what many in the top tier believe: why share our loot with those who barely put in the resources.

The one thing I can say is that the NCAA tourney works precisely because of the egalitarian nature and 'Cinderella' moments. The overwhelming majority of these teams are just happy to compete, gain some exposure, and earn some crumbs in the process. And people like that. The have-nots have lots of alumni as well who in turn tune in and buy tickets and merchandise, etc. Be careful of what you wish for vis a vis a tourney of nothing but power conference teams. No one gets excited about a 7th place SEC team upsetting Duke or an 11th place Big East team going to the wire with Kansas regardless of seeding.

I disagree. The "cinderella" moments are a minor blip. It's the UPSETS that are the moments people get excited about. I remember a #10 seed Maryland team beating a #2 seeded UMass team when I was in school. And we've seen many other cases when a #12 seed Big Ten school upset a #5 ACC school. It's the numerical catalog in place in the tourney that drives the type of interest you mention. You are correct, when a #12 Murray St. beats a #5 Louisville, it's a big deal as it's a "small school" in the casual persons mind. But it's still the seeds that are key. Even better is that with no autobids, there won't be such a huge drop in quality between seeds. A #15 Missouri might be a 7 point underdog against a #2 Ohio St. Nothing wrong with making the early rounds better games. Might have years where you see an entire region have "upsets" in the 1st round as the point spreads would be closer than they are now. And the big boys get there money as they'll likely send more schools (are you going to pass on 17-11 ACC school like Pitt in favor of a 22-6 Duquesne?)

I think you are COMPLETELY off base, and if the powers that be think like you, they will slay the Golden Goose.March Madness EXISTS because of the mix of small guys and big guys.I'd rather see Norfolk or Lehigh in the tourney that a mediocre Big 5 team. And face it, if you can't break .500 in your conference, you are a mediocre team.

The early games are good all ready.

Jon, really? You think a 16-12 SEC or ACC school that is .500 in their conference is mediocre? And that they are a lesser quality than a MEAC, SWAC, ASun, etc champion? In almost any situation, the quality of the team that finishes .500 in conference in the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, etc, would likely dominate if they were in one of those conferences like the SWAC, ASun, etc. But simply because they are actually in a competitive conference, instead of lucking out by being in a weak conference, that it's a knock on them as a program?

The tournament is supposed to be about getting the best schools in. It's Darwinism. It's not supposed to be what it is now where everyone gets their chance to play. I'll give you this: it is very American, but today's social standards.

But what is alarming to me, is that people such as yourself make comments, but you are saying that the tournament to crown a championship, the playoffs for college basketball, are not about putting the most worthy schools in. Because if you felt the most worthy schools deserve to be in each year, then we'd be in agreement. Because in my mind it's real simple: get rid of the autobids and have the best schools in. Period. If it's Jackson St., Florida A&M, Binghamton, Kennesaw St., Houston baptist, etc, so be it. If they are one of the best 64 schools in the country they should be in. But there's no reason for them to be in the tournament, just because they are in a weak conference and happened to win a tournament against other weak schools in that conference.

And there are worse things than a .500 in conference ACC, SEC, Big Ten, etc school getting in, right? Like a .500 in conference Southland, Big Sky, ASun, MEAC, SWAC, etc. It happens. Even a bad program can 3-4 games against other bad programs.

Curious though: what is your stance on the Great West? They really could use the support of people like you in their quest to be included in the tourney. I'd buy a "UTPA All The Way" t-shirt today.

I remember watching last year's (2010) Coaches v. Cancer at MSG telecast and between games Jay Bilas editorialized on how there were too many D-I teams. I was rather shocked at the seething vitriol in his voice and the overall 'we'll take our ball and go home' tone. The thing is, Bilas was probably just voicing what many in the top tier believe: why share our loot with those who barely put in the resources.

The one thing I can say is that the NCAA tourney works precisely because of the egalitarian nature and 'Cinderella' moments. The overwhelming majority of these teams are just happy to compete, gain some exposure, and earn some crumbs in the process. And people like that. The have-nots have lots of alumni as well who in turn tune in and buy tickets and merchandise, etc. Be careful of what you wish for vis a vis a tourney of nothing but power conference teams. No one gets excited about a 7th place SEC team upsetting Duke or an 11th place Big East team going to the wire with Kansas regardless of seeding.

I disagree. The "cinderella" moments are a minor blip. It's the UPSETS that are the moments people get excited about. I remember a #10 seed Maryland team beating a #2 seeded UMass team when I was in school. And we've seen many other cases when a #12 seed Big Ten school upset a #5 ACC school. It's the numerical catalog in place in the tourney that drives the type of interest you mention. You are correct, when a #12 Murray St. beats a #5 Louisville, it's a big deal as it's a "small school" in the casual persons mind. But it's still the seeds that are key. Even better is that with no autobids, there won't be such a huge drop in quality between seeds. A #15 Missouri might be a 7 point underdog against a #2 Ohio St. Nothing wrong with making the early rounds better games. Might have years where you see an entire region have "upsets" in the 1st round as the point spreads would be closer than they are now. And the big boys get there money as they'll likely send more schools (are you going to pass on 17-11 ACC school like Pitt in favor of a 22-6 Duquesne?)

I think you are COMPLETELY off base, and if the powers that be think like you, they will slay the Golden Goose.March Madness EXISTS because of the mix of small guys and big guys.I'd rather see Norfolk or Lehigh in the tourney that a mediocre Big 5 team. And face it, if you can't break .500 in your conference, you are a mediocre team.

The early games are good all ready.

Yeah, gonna have to agree with that statement. I didn't get excited for NC State this year. It was go Lehigh and Norfolk after the first round. Last year it was VCU and Butler (even though I had UConn winning it all, damn the bracket at that point). We know they aren't going to win it all and rarely get out of the second round. But that's what makes a run like George Mason's so wonderful, it's rare. Nova winning as an 8 seed...so what?

And that's fine. It's a fine opinion. But let's not ever mistake the NCAA Final Four tournament as being anything legitimate if it intentionally excludes better programs in favor of letting in all the autobids from the weaker conferences, schools that will have high triple digit RPIs, no strong OOC road game scheduling, and a conference schedule that is always going to be weak.

I remember watching last year's (2010) Coaches v. Cancer at MSG telecast and between games Jay Bilas editorialized on how there were too many D-I teams. I was rather shocked at the seething vitriol in his voice and the overall 'we'll take our ball and go home' tone. The thing is, Bilas was probably just voicing what many in the top tier believe: why share our loot with those who barely put in the resources.

The one thing I can say is that the NCAA tourney works precisely because of the egalitarian nature and 'Cinderella' moments. The overwhelming majority of these teams are just happy to compete, gain some exposure, and earn some crumbs in the process. And people like that. The have-nots have lots of alumni as well who in turn tune in and buy tickets and merchandise, etc. Be careful of what you wish for vis a vis a tourney of nothing but power conference teams. No one gets excited about a 7th place SEC team upsetting Duke or an 11th place Big East team going to the wire with Kansas regardless of seeding.

I disagree. The "cinderella" moments are a minor blip. It's the UPSETS that are the moments people get excited about. I remember a #10 seed Maryland team beating a #2 seeded UMass team when I was in school. And we've seen many other cases when a #12 seed Big Ten school upset a #5 ACC school. It's the numerical catalog in place in the tourney that drives the type of interest you mention. You are correct, when a #12 Murray St. beats a #5 Louisville, it's a big deal as it's a "small school" in the casual persons mind. But it's still the seeds that are key. Even better is that with no autobids, there won't be such a huge drop in quality between seeds. A #15 Missouri might be a 7 point underdog against a #2 Ohio St. Nothing wrong with making the early rounds better games. Might have years where you see an entire region have "upsets" in the 1st round as the point spreads would be closer than they are now. And the big boys get there money as they'll likely send more schools (are you going to pass on 17-11 ACC school like Pitt in favor of a 22-6 Duquesne?)

I think you are COMPLETELY off base, and if the powers that be think like you, they will slay the Golden Goose.March Madness EXISTS because of the mix of small guys and big guys.I'd rather see Norfolk or Lehigh in the tourney that a mediocre Big 5 team. And face it, if you can't break .500 in your conference, you are a mediocre team.

The early games are good all ready.

Yeah, gonna have to agree with that statement. I didn't get excited for NC State this year. It was go Lehigh and Norfolk after the first round. Last year it was VCU and Butler (even though I had UConn winning it all, damn the bracket at that point). We know they aren't going to win it all and rarely get out of the second round. But that's what makes a run like George Mason's so wonderful, it's rare. Nova winning as an 8 seed...so what?

And that's fine. It's a fine opinion. But let's not ever mistake the NCAA Final Four tournament as being anything legitimate if it intentionally excludes better programs in favor of letting in all the autobids from the weaker conferences, schools that will have high triple digit RPIs, no strong OOC road game scheduling, and a conference schedule that is always going to be weak.

It's not a "playoff", it's a made for TV event.

No one is going to argue that there are teams getting left out that are better than the 15 and 16 seeds, but it's not like those teams would have a chance anyway. It's rare for anything under a 6 seed to reach the Final Four let alone win a championship. So it's not like a potential championship team is getting left out, nor is even a sweet 16 team being left out. And occasionally a 15 seed conference champion shows that it deserves to be there, this year that happened twice.

I would much rather reward a team that won their conference championship and played their way into the tournament than reward a team that was 16-12 and lost in the first or second round of their tournament. My opinion, you clearly disagree, no worries. Not that this matters. The NCAA has autobids in everything (minus football of course). They aren't getting rid of them in basketball.

This IS all about slaying the Golden Goose. The tourney gains its buzz from Norfolk and Lehigh winning, not whether Seton Hall would've been a more deserving option. I figured Butler, GMU and VCU's recent successes would've sealed the argument for inclusion of more mid-majors, not less. The big boys are not being kept out because of autobids, hell that's why they expanded to 68 and the average power conference team still can't make it in. The Golden Goose is that with these sprinkling of have-nots taking down the haves, ad revenue is at an all-time high. The NCAA tournament is now second only to the Super Bowl in terms of ad revenue and this is because of BOTH the Kentuckys and the Norfolks and it is precisely this mix which makes for compelling TV. Why change a runaway train? Why jeopardize this thing that has more or less been perfect for the last 30 years or so?

If we assume d2 and d3 remain unchanged, and that d1 subdivisions are based on football only, we can identify five subdivisions:1A BCS football1B Other FBS football1C FCS football1D Non-scholarship football1E No football

But if one of the perceived problems is that there are too many d1 schools, then perhaps we have to re-think d2 as well, and the requirements for becoming and/or remaining d1. I think the main distinction between d1 and d2 currently is the number of varsity sports offered.

Perhaps d1 should also have a minimum "number of scholarships funded" requirement. Schools that fail to fund the minimum would get bumped down to d2.

Alternatively, d2 could be left as is, but d1 could be stratified solely on number of scholarships funded (e.g., high, medium, low). Football would be the main driver, of course, but not the only one. A non-football school that fully funded 25+ scholarship sports might still be in the high stratum.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum